Knowing that men set the canon for scripture, how are we to know what exactly deems which books, even accounts and letters, as inspired or the Word of God? I know this branches out into a lot of things, but I'd like a firm, secure understanding.

Knowing that men set the canon for scripture, how are we to know what exactly deems which books, even accounts and letters, as inspired or the Word of God?Ã‚Â I know this branches out into a lot of things, but I'd like a firm, secure understanding.

I am looking forward to this subject, as it seems to be a needed one. Off of the top of my head to get us started:

Well for one thing Christians in different countries and different councils all chose the same canon, so that means something. I have a book that goes over the canon and one way that the books are determined genuine is if other Bible writers or people in the Bible books (Jesus does on many occasions) quote them.

One way to know that a copy is accurate is to compare it to an older copy and see what has or hasn't been changed. They have found older and older copies and have not found any glaring copying errors that would change the meaning in the later copies that were used for translations.

Translators compare the earliest translated versions of the scriptures. For the Hebrew scriptures we have The Samaritan Pentateuch, The Aramaic Targums, and the Greek Septuagint. For the Greek scriptures we have the Latin Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian and Syriac versions.

Knowing that men set the canon for scripture, how are we to know what exactly deems which books, even accounts and letters, as inspired or the Word of God? I know this branches out into a lot of things, but I'd like a firm, secure understanding.

To insure everyone knows what is being referred to here, we are talking about #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 2 through 6 below:

canÃ¢â‚¬Â¢onÃ¢â‚¬Â¢ize /ˈkÃƒÂ¦nəˌnaɪz/ Ã¢â‚¬â€œverb (used with object), -ized, -izÃ¢â‚¬Â¢ing.1. Ecclesiastical . to place in the canon of saints.2. to glorify.3. to make canonical; place or include within a canon, esp. of scriptural works: They canonized the Song of Solomon after much controversy.4. to consider or treat as sacrosanct or holy: They canonized his many verbal foibles and made them gospel.5. to sanction or approve authoritatively, esp. ecclesiastically.6. Archaic . to deify.

><> ><> ><>

Having said that, we are not talking about the Ã¢â‚¬Å“CanonizationÃ¢â‚¬Â of people as Ã¢â‚¬Å“saintsÃ¢â‚¬Â, but the Ã¢â‚¬Å“CanonizationÃ¢â‚¬Â of Biblical texts! Both are largely a Catholic process. And by Catholic, I do not mean Ã¢â‚¬Å“CatholicÃ¢â‚¬Â in the classical sense (i.e. as in the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Universal Christian Church, or the body of Christ that Paul spoke about in Rom 12:5, 1Corinth 10:17, 1Co 12:12 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 31 with emphasis on 27), but the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Catholic ChurchÃ¢â‚¬Â as we recognize it today.

Further, it is a misconception to believe that Ã¢â‚¬Å“men set the canon for scriptureÃ¢â‚¬Â. For, as Paul said in Second Timothy 3:16 Ã¢â‚¬Å“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousnessÃ¢â‚¬Â . And as Peter said in Second Peter 1:20 - 21 Ã¢â‚¬Å“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.Ã¢â‚¬Â God, and God alone, through His Holy Spirit, sets that actual cannon.

Further, ALL the books of our New Testament were considered Biblical Scripture long before the end of the first century and a half. This was long before the Ã¢â‚¬Å“First Council of NicaeaÃ¢â‚¬Â (in A.D. 325). The councils were not there to Ã¢â‚¬Å“canonizeÃ¢â‚¬Â the scriptures, but more of an attempt to settle the Christological issue of the Trinity and such. And to formalize items like how to appoint Bishops (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦).

Knowing that men set the canon for scripture, how are we to know what exactly deems which books, even accounts and letters, as inspired or the Word of God? I know this branches out into a lot of things, but I'd like a firm, secure understanding.

The thing I use to go by is that the older books are more closer to the truth. And here's why.

1) Translators back then knew more about what was meant by certain words and were more interested in getting it right.2) Newer translations get their exaltation to being the best by knocking other translations. Which in my opinion is the first sign there is something wrong with it. You don't attack the Body of Christ because you claim you have a "new" truth.3) Not understanding as well makes it to where we "have to" rely more on God to open our eyes to what is being said. Making it easy to understand means you buy into someone Else's opinion of what it's supposed to mean. Who is the supreme being, man or God?4) When we rely more on God for meaning, God is able to more communicate to the individual for his or her individual need to what the Word says. Because what means one thing to one person about a verse, may mean something totally different to another. In this way God is able to meet each individual in his or her circumstance. And the Word. just like the Savior, becomes more personal.5) Copyright laws requires that each translation be 10% different from all others that exist. And because of this, the more translations exist the more it's about not breaking the law than it is about translating truth.6) Later translators have different views than the early ones did. They are more about putting their opinion or doctrinal belief into the word (This and that doctrine Bible). A Bible written for a Doctrinal belief does not make the Doctrine true. What it does show is that the doctrine has becomes god and therefore a translation just for it is needed and the people in it refuse to be corrected by any other source. In a sense it becomes a cult. 7) Science, which is not about the supernatural, affects this as well. The early translators did not have to deal with scientific opinions and new doctrines. They wrote their translations based more on trying to get the language and meanings right. To insert other agendas would have taken much to long.

The biggest excuse I hear from people whom prefer newer translations is that it's easier to understand. Who was it that made it easier to understand, God or man? And if the man whom makes it easier to understand is wrong, what then?

There are people around this world that do not even have access to the Word, yet we complain that we want an easier to understand Word of God? When the people who don't have access would be happy to take what we don't want and immerse themselves into it enough to understand it while we are to lazy.

Examples:

1) When we use easy to understand translations, to where we don't need to seek God while reading it. What truth are we really searching for?2) Has anyone ever considered that the main reason the Word is not easy to understand is because God wants us to seek His counsel?3) Who do we as Christians want to be closer to, God or the translators?4) And when it comes right down to being judged for all that we did, what will be our excuse for following the counsel of the translator over the counsel of God?

What causes all these problems? Our inability to wait on God. Our pride. And what we want we want it now and not later. And we are willing to follow anyone who will give us these things.

phil 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Our "own salvation" means we are responsible for the truth we think we have found. And if we truly tested it. Having the internet means we have just that ability to search it out more than those from the past. Having the ability to do so and refusing to do so means that we choose to be ignorant on purpose.

rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Reading a translation because we like what it says, or that it's easy to understand means we are reading the Word of God for the wrong reasons. We read the Word of God to find God. The understanding of the word comes after we find God and He relays His wisdom to us. Our understanding comes as God sees fit to show us.

The only way we can be molded by the potter is if we are willing to be the clay. Relying on our own understanding means we want to mold ourselves. And the potter can do nothing with a mold that is already made unless we allow him to break it and reform it.

In 1943 Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical letter, Divino Afflante Spiritu, which encouraged Roman Catholics to translate the Scriptures from the original Hebrew and Greek, rather than from Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

Not to promote the Jerusalem Bible, it was just a good quote. The older (and closer to the original) the text that is referred to for translation the better. Instead of translating from another translation, how much better is it to find the oldest fragments of anything translated? I would think that should be one thing to look for.

Further, it is a misconception to believe that Ã¢â‚¬Å“men set the canon for scriptureÃ¢â‚¬Â. For, as Paul said in Second Timothy 3:16Ã‚Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousnessÃ¢â‚¬Â . And as Peter said in Second Peter 1:20 - 21 Ã¢â‚¬Å“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.Ã¢â‚¬Â God, and God alone, through His Holy Spirit, sets that actual cannon. Further, ALL the books of our New Testament were considered Biblical Scripture long before the end of the first century and a half.

I just read parts of this today when I took the kids to the library. You might look out for it. The article "Can we trust the Bible?" is encouraging. If you can't get the magazine itself it might show up linked on the above URL at a later time.

I'm not sold on the older the better idea. The original Hebrew and Greek can easily be translated into modern English without taking away anything from the original texts. Living languages change, like English but dead languages cannot change in meaning like Hebrew and Greek. I'm not saying all new translations are right.

I'm not sold on the older the better idea. The original Hebrew and Greek can easily be translated into modern English without taking away anything from the original texts. Living languages change, like English but dead languages cannot change in meaning like Hebrew and Greek. I'm not saying all new translations are right.

God's word is not like a theory. It does not have to change constantly to find truth. The truth is already in it. It is we who must change to see it.

1- The problem isn't the translations, but the mistranslations.2- You are always better off learning ancient languages.

Just saying...

Well, actually I agree. But we have to start somewhere and a translation in our native language is a good start.

"And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?"- Acts 2:8

"and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." - Revelation 5:9

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.Ã¢â‚¬Â - Zechariah 8:23.

Then why translate it at all? Why not take it a step further and say that we should all learn the ancient languages and understand God's Word with no help except our personal relationship with him?

God created the languages to separate man. Why would God want us to go back to one language?

What I see here is more of an excuse to continue what you do. Because I go so far, then you go further. It is not me that your argument is really with in the end now is it? Justifying it to me is not what you should be worried about.

Defending what you do and the way you do it shows me you don't want to change. Not that you could find anything wrong with change you just don't want to. So you nick pick. And you are creating a never ending debate. Sometimes when you don't want change, you have to agree to disagree.

Further, it is a misconception to believe that Ã¢â‚¬Å“men set the canon for scriptureÃ¢â‚¬Â. For, as Paul said in Second Timothy 3:16 Ã¢â‚¬Å“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousnessÃ¢â‚¬Â . And as Peter said in Second Peter 1:20 - 21 Ã¢â‚¬Å“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Well, that's the question. What is what we've come to know as scripture?

But it looks like I have some strong resources in the posts above! Thank you very much and happy new year!

Well, actually I agree. But we have to start somewhere and a translation in our native language is a good start.

"And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?"- Acts 2:8

KJV Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

10% change to make it not break copyright laws.

"and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." - Revelation 5:9

KJV Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation

See the word kindred is changed to tribe.

Kindred: group of people related by blood or marriage

Tribe: a social division of (usually preliterate) peoplea federation (as of American Indians)(biology) a taxonomic category between a genus and a subfamilykin: group of people related by blood or marriage

Kindred defines as an exact. Tribe can mean more than one thing.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.Ã¢â‚¬Â - Zechariah 8:23.

KJV Zechariah 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

KJV Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

10% change to make it not break copyright laws.KJV Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation

See the word kindred is changed to tribe.

Kindred: group of people related by blood or marriage

Tribe: a social division of (usually preliterate) peoplea federation (as of American Indians)(biology) a taxonomic category between a genus and a subfamilykin: group of people related by blood or marriage

Kindred defines as an exact. Tribe can mean more than one thing.KJV Zechariah 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

Same wording which means this maybe from KJV.

It was. I remember that one. Sorry, I wasn't keeping track of which translations the other scriptures came from. When I want to quote a scripture I usually do a quick search for the wording I remember and just pull up the first Google so I can copy and paste it. If I have my NWT CD or the New Jerusalem Bible loaded already then I may use one of those. The Google search is usually NIV or American Standard.

So if you want to go through and figure out where my quotes come from that will give you a good start.

Interesting about Revelation and then difference between tribe and kindred. I might check it out in the Greek Interlinear and my reference bible to see if there is a footnote.

Interesting about Revelation and then difference between tribe and kindred. I might check it out in the Greek Interlinear and my reference bible to see if there is a footnote.

That's what I was trying to get at. People may try to make the wording more modern sounding, but in turn they change it's meaning. And this is done through out newer translations. A word here, a word there and the person who is doing in depth study gets the wrong idea of what applies to whom.

The old English words have more exact meaning, the new has a wide variety of meanings. And when you want to know exact meaning, you won't find it.

To understand the old English wording you have to work with it for a while and then it starts to make sense. And because it just a little varied off of the modern English, it won't be as hard as you might think. It's not like learning Spanish or another language, where you start from scratch.